HARISH BHARDWAJ vs KUMARI TRISHA
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
1 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
Cr. Revision [FC] No.89 of 2025
Reserved on: 12.08.2026
Pronounced on: 01.09.2026
__________________________________________________________
Harish Bhardwaj
...Petitioner
High Court of H.P.
Versus
Kumari Trisha
…Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner [Harish Bhardwaj] being the
father of Respondent-Trisha [minor daughter] has
come up before this Court, in revision proceedings,
assailing the order dated 14.10.2025 [referred to
as the Impugned Order], passed by the Learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur
at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla [referred to
as the ‘Family Court’] , in Case Registration No
86 of 2022, Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and another
versus Harish Bhardwaj, awarding an amount of
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
2 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
Rs 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the
High Court of H.P.
Respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha] from the date
of filing of petition on 22.11.2022, under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [referred
to as ‘Cr.P.C.’]; with the prayer to quash and set
aside the aforesaid order.
2. Meenakshi Sharma being the w ife and
the Respondent- Kumari Trisha, being the daughter
of Harish Bharadwaj, had filed a petition under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, bearing Case Registration
No. 86 of 2022, for maintenance of Rs 20000/-
[at the rate of Rs 10,000/-each to both] before
the Learned Family Court Kinnaur on 22.11.2022.
During the pendency of instant petition, Meenakshi
Sharma [Wife] withdrew her claim against the
Respondent-husband [Harish Bhardwaj in terms of
the order dated 01.11.2024 passed by Learned Family
Court concerned.
CASE SET UP BY THE RESPONDENT-MINOR
DAUGHTER THROUGH MOTHER IN SECTION
125 Cr.P.C. PROCEEDINGS:
3. In Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the
grievance as set up by Respondent-minor daughter
[Kumari Trisha] is that, at the relevant time, she
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
3 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
th
was studying in 5 Standard in DAV School
High Court of H.P.
Duttnagar and was about 9 years of age and on
behalf of the minor Respondent-daughter [Kumari
Trisha], her natural guardian [her mother] pursued
claim for maintenance of Rs 10,000/-per month
against the respondent-father [Harish Bhardwaj], with
the plea that her father had not been maintaining
her and he has failed to perform his legal and
statutory obligations towards his daughter. It is
in this backdrop, a prayer was made to allow
the claim for maintenance.
REPLY BY PETITIONER-HUSBAND IN SECTION
125 CrPC PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED
FAMILY COURT KINNAUR:
3(i). In reply, the petitioner, [Harish Bhardwaj]
opposed the claim for maintenance, on the ground
that he had served as Senior Manager in Bajaj
Allianz Life Insurance Company from June 2007 to
April 2009 and he left the job from the aforesaid
Company. It is averred that he started working
with Soaring Hills Solution Pvt. Ltd. for some time
and had worked abroad till July, 2014. It was
averred that he had consultancy business under
name and style of “Harish Bhardwaj & Company”
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
4 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
and during Pandemic COVID-19, the business was
High Court of H.P.
disrupted but after Pandemic COVID-19 was over
the business had improved. It is further averred
that he has no immovable property and the petition
was filed just to harass him. In this background,
the claim of petitioner was opposed with the prayer
to dismiss the petition.
REJOINDER BY RESPONDENT-DAUGHETER IN
125 Cr.P.C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED
FAMILY COURT, KINNAUR:
3(ii). In rejoinder , the Respondent-minor daughter
[Trisha], through her mother Meenakshi Sharma],
stated that, it was due to compelling circumstances,
that the mother as well as the respondent-daughter
were forced to shift elsewhere and the daughter
th
was studying in DAV School Duttnagar in 5
standard.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED FAMILY
COURT UNDER SECTION 125 Cr.P.C.:
3(iii). Learned Family Court, framed the Issues
as to whether respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha]
was entitled for the maintenance @ Rs 10,000 per
month as claimed.
3(iv). During the course of proceedings before
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
5 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
Learned Family Court, the mother of respondent
High Court of H.P.
[being natural guardian of minor] Smt. Meenakshi
Sharma, appeared as PW-1 to assert a claim for
monthly maintenance on behalf of the Respondent
-daughter [Minor Kumari Trisha]. PW-1, proved the
school expenses i.e. Rs 3,000/- as transportation
charges and Rs 1840/- as tuition fees as per
Mark M-1 and Mark M-2. Even, PW-1 deposed that
though she had joined a job in October 2017
but due to health reasons she left the job in
2022 and thereafter she has no source of income
and she was dependent on her parents, so as
to maintain herself and the minor child-Trisha.
Petitioner-father examined himself as RW-1 before
Learned Family Court, admitting that he had not
paid any maintenance to his daughter. He deposed
that he has no obligation to maintain his wife as
well as respondent-minor daughter. He deposed
that he had served at various places and presently
he was unemployed but he was ready and willing
to take custody of the minor daughter.
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED
BY LEARNED FAMILY COURT:
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
6 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
3(v). Learned Family Court Kinnaur passed
High Court of H.P.
the Impugned Order on 14.10.2025 awarding the
maintenance of Rs 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand]
per month to the Respondent-daughter from the
date of filing of the petition on 22.11.2022; with
the findings that the respondent-minor daughter
was a growing child and for her proper upbringing,
besides the school expenses {i.e. monthly tuition
fee and monthly transportation of Rs 4,820/- per
month}, and the requirement of other necessities
including food, clothing, medical expenses etc., the
maintenance of Rs 10,000/- per month was awarded
by the Learned Family Court, Kinnaur in terms of
the Impugned Order.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER:
4. In the instant revision proceedings, the
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the
Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025, on the ground,
firstly , the Impugned Order was against the facts
and law; and secondly ; the petitioner-father was
unemployed and had no work and therefore he
could not be burdened with the amount of
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
7 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
maintenance by ignoring his financial capacity; and
High Court of H.P.
thirdly, the petitioner-father cannot be saddled with
liability as he has to look after his aged parents
and meet their existing liabilities and personal
expenses; and fourthly, on the plea that Impugned
Order awarding the maintenance of Rs 10,000/-
per month to Respondent-minor daughter [Trisha]
was excessive and not commensurate with his
income and status; and in this backdrop, a prayer
was made to set-aside the Impugned Order.
CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT:
5. Per-contra, Learned Counsel for respondent
[Kumari Trisha] has supported the Impugned Order
passed by Learned Family Court, with the plea
that merely because the husband as unemployed
is no ground to evade his legal obligations towards
the Respondent-minor daughter. He submits that
besides tuition and transportation expenses other
bare necessities including food, clothing, medical
expenses etc., including inflationary costs of living
justifying the amount of maintenance awarded to
the Respondent-daughter.
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
8 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
5(i). In addition, Learned Counsel for the
High Court of H.P.
Respondent-minor daughter places reliance on a
judgment dated 01.10.2024, passed by Learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kinnaur
at Rampur, Bushehar, District Shimla (H.P.), in
CIS Registration Nos 175/2024 & 368/2024, titled
as Smt. Meenakshi Sharma vs Harish Bhardwaj,
in proceedings for divorce by mutual consent under
Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
as amended from time to time, to establish that
though the marriage between her parents stood
dissolved by a decree with mutual consent but
in aforesaid proceedings, petitioner-Harish Bhardwaj
has made a statement on 01.10.2024, that even
after this divorce, he will continue to pay the
maintenance to the minor child {i.e. the respondent
herein} and he will abide by the final verdict
by Learned Family Court, Kinnaur, in Section 125
of Cr.P.C. proceedings, in the following terms :-
“11. Upon motion made, the court recorded
the statement of parties today on
01.10.2024. Parties were identified by
the Counsels. While making enquiry,
this court is also of the considered
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
9 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
view that parties are unable to make
re-union. The parties have settled
High Court of H.P.
that petitioner No. 2 Harish Bharadwaj
will continue to pay and provide the
interim maintenance already awarded
to the minor child Trisha even after
the divorce, in the petition under
section 125 Cr.PC, and will abide by
the final verdict given by the family
court in that petition. It has been agreed
that the child will reside with petitioner
Smt. Meenakshi Sharma (mother) who
is looking after him. The petitioner No.
2 Harish Bharadwaj will have visiting
rights to meet the child.
13. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons this
petition under section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is allowed
and the marriage between the parties
/petitioners solemnized 07/08.12.2008,
is ordered to be dissolved under section
13-B of the Hindu marriage Act, by
decree of divorce by mutual consent.
The petitioner Harish Bharadwaj will
provide interim maintenance to the
child Trisha per month as has already
been awarded by the Family Court
and will provide maintenance as per
the outcome of the proceedings under
section 125 Cr.PC pending before
the the Family Court. The statement
of the parties shall from part of
the decree. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly…………"
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
10 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
In above backdrop, it was contented that
High Court of H.P.
once the petitioner-father had made a statement /
given an undertaking before Learned Family Court
concerned that he will abide by the outcome of
the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and will
give the maintenance to her daughter then, the
filing of present petition was a devise to delay and
also to deprive the respondent-daughter of her
an absolute right of maintenance.
6. Heard, Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Learned
Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Sharma,
Learned Counsel, for the respondent.
ANALYSIS:
7. Taking into account the entirety of facts
and circumstances and the material on record,
including requisitioned records, this Court is of the
considered view that the Impugned Order passed
by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court on 14.10.2025, in Case Registration No 86
of 2022, in awarding the monthly maintenance to
the Respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha] of Rs
10000/-from the date of filing of the petition on
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
11 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
22.11.2022 does not warrant any interference,
,
High Court of H.P.
in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act, for the following
reasons:-
7(i). Deposition of PW-1, establishes that after
2022, she being the mother of the minor daughter
Respondent-Kumari Trisha had left the job and
she has no source of income and was dependant
on her parents. Even, testimony of the petitioner
as RW-1, before Learned Family Court admits that
he is unemployed since 2020 and his daughter
th
is studying in 5 Standard in DAV School at
Duttnagar and he has not paid any maintenance
to his daughter. The plea of the petitioner that
he was under no obligation to maintain his wife
and daughter in view of his unemployment, is
untenable and his unemployment is not a ground
to escape the liability to maintain the respondent-
daughter [Kumari Trisha] . Nothing has been placed
on record to establish that he was bodily disabled
and due to such infirmity was incapacitated to
earn. In the absence of any such proof, petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
12 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
-father cannot be absolved of his legal obligation
High Court of H.P.
to maintain his minor daughter. Merely because
respondent-daughter was living with her mother
cannot be a ground for the petitioner-father to
avoid his statutory obligation. Accepting the plea
of the petitioner-father not to maintain his child
shall defeat the intent and object of Section 125
Cr.P.C. and shall also violate the social purpose
sought to be achieved by safeguarding the “dignity
of minor by providing proper child support” in
growing age, so as to uplift her status and living
with growing age of the Respondent-minor daughter
herein.
7(ii). Even perusal of affidavit dated 08.08.2023
filed by the petitioner-father [Harish Bhardwaj] in
proceedings before Learned Family Court, Kinnaur,
admits that he has not been maintaining his
minor daughter. This stand of the petitioner is
untenable in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anju Garg
& Anr. vs Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online
SC 1314 that it is the sacrosanct duty of the
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
13 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
husband to provide financial support to the wife
High Court of H.P.
and minor children and once the father was able-
bodied then, he was required to earn money even
by physical labour and he could not avoid his
bounden obligation to maintain his minor child.
On the other hand, even the affidavit filed by
the mother on behalf of the respondent-daughter
before Learned Family Court on 20.11.2022 and
on 18.01.2024, establish that the expenses of
respondent-daughter are more than Rs 15000/-
[Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only] per month. Petitioner-
father has chosen not to file any rebuttal to
the affidavit dated 18.01.2024. Further, considering
the fact that the minor child was of a growing
age, requiring proper upbringing including proper
diet, clothing, medical expenses and other ancillary
day-to-day expenses besides the school expenses
of Rs 4,840/-per month [Rs 3,000/- as transportation
expenses as per Mark 1 and Rs 1840/- per month
as tuition fee as per Mark 2], coupled with the
inflationary costs of living which has increased
manifold and the expansion of needs and relative
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
14 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
requirements with growing age and advancement
High Court of H.P.
of education as she moves to the higher classes,
requiring additional expenses for education and
otherwise, therefore, considering all the factors
cumulatively and after taking a holistic view of
the matter, the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025
awarding an amount of Rs 10000/- [Rs Ten Thousand
Only] per month as maintenance is fair, just and
reasonable and commensurate to the status of
respondent-daughter, who is of growing age and
requires proper upbringing.
7(iii). Even, in terms of order dated 01.10.2024,
referred to in Para 5 (i) of this judgement, the
claim of the respondent-daughter is fortified in
view of the statement made by petitioner-father in
proceedings between the parents for mutual divorce
decided on 01.10.2024, whereby, the petitioner-
father had made a statement or undertaking before
Learned Family Court in HMA proceedings that
he shall provide the interim maintenance and
final amount on outcome of the proceedings under
Section 125 Cr. P.C, which were pending before
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
15 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
Learned Family Court concerned. Notably, once
High Court of H.P.
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stand decided
in terms of Impugned Order on 14.10.2025, awarding
an amount of maintenance of Rs 10000/- per month
then, the petitioner-father cannot resile from his
statement or undertaking furnished before Learned
Family Court concerned. Invoking the revisional
remedy appears to be an indirect attempt to
wriggle out of the solemn statement made or an
undertaking furnished before the Family Court
concerned is an abuse of process of this Court.
Even nothing has been placed on record by the
petitioner to assert and establish that order dated
01.10.2024 passed in HMA proceedings has been
modified or were set-aside. That being so, once
the order has attained finality therefore, this Court
upholds the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025,
entitling the respondent-minor daughter (Trisha) for
the monthly maintenance.
7(iv). Reliance placed by Learned Counsel for
the petitioner on the judgment passed in Criminal
Revision No.430 of 2019 , titled as Seema Kumari
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
16 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
, decided on
vs Rajesh Kumar & connected matter
High Court of H.P.
07.12.2021 will not come to the assistance of
the petitioner and same is distinguishable on
facts.
7(v). Even, reliance placed on the judgment by
Learned Counsel for petitioner in Chandrashekar
vs Swapnil & Anr. , (2021) 12 SCC 624 is of
no help to the petitioner for the reason that the
aforesaid judgment is distinguishable, whereby, the
monthly maintenance was reduced in the backdrop
where a fixed amount of more than Rs 6 Lakhs
was paid by the father to minor child and it is
this backdrop that amount of monthly maintenance
was reduced in said proceedings. However, perusal
of Para No 9.3 of the judgment in the case of
Chandrashekar (supra) rather negates the plea
of the petitioner, for the reason, that though the
quantum of monthly maintenance was reduced
but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the
claim of the minor child therein, for increase in
maintenance for succeeding years.
7(vi). Besides the above, this Court observes
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
17 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4)
High Court of H.P.
of the Family Courts Act is invokable only in
case the impugned order suffers from illegality
or impropriety or irregularity in proceedings.
Nothing has been pointed out by Learned Counsel
for the petitioner-father that Impugned Order dated
14.10.2025 suffers from illegality or impropriety
or irregularity in proceedings. Merely because a
different conclusion could have been drawn is not
a ground to show indulgence in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, in the light of the mandate
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui
vs Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 [Para 20].
CONCLUSION:
8. Based on the above discussion, this
Court is of the considered view that the Impugned
Order dated 14.10.2025, awarding the maintenance
to the respondent-daughter [Kumari Trisha] , being
minor child of petitioner-father [ Harish Bhardwaj] ,
by awarding an amount of Rs 10,000/- per month
after considering all the broad-parameters is fair,
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
18 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
just and reasonable, proportionate and is also
High Court of H.P.
commensurate with the status and requirements
of the minor child, who is at a growing age. The
amount of maintenance awarded is not required
to be interdicted by this Court, in the absence
of any illegality or impropriety or correctness
or irregularity in proceedings conducted by Learned
Family Court concerned. Consequently, Impugned
Order dated 14.10.2025 passed by Learned Family
Court is upheld and the present petition, sans
merit, is dismissed.
9. No other point was raised/argued.
DIRECTIONS:
10. In view of above discussion and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Revision
Petition, is dismissed , in following terms:
(i) Instant Petition i.e. Criminal Revision
(FC) No. 89 of 2025, titled as Harish
Bhardwaj versus Kumari Trisha, is
dismissed;
(ii) The Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025
in case Registration No 86 of 2022,
titled as Meenakshi Sharma & Anr
versus Harish Bhardwaj, passed by
Learned Additional Principal Judge,
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS
19 [ 2026:HHC:36927 ]
Family Court, Kinnaur at Rampur
Bushehar, District Shimla (HP), is
High Court of H.P.
upheld;
(iii) Petitioner-husband [Harish Bhardwaj]
is directed to release the amount of
maintenance awarded in terms of
the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2025
to the respondent-daughter [Kumari
Trisha], after adjusting the amount
granted in proceedings before Family
Court Kinnaur or in any other
proceedings; within six weeks from
today; and
(iv) Parties to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant Revision
Petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 01, 2026.
(Bhardwaj)
::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2026 15:15:39 :::CIS